Evolutionary Theory predicts almost nothing?

[FarWanderer]

I would not turn to evolutionary theory because it predicts almost nothing.

Rarely have I encountered a statement that strikes me as ridiculous as this. What in biology does evolutionary theory NOT predict?

[Jubal]

what 'test' successfully demonstrated the claim, that a single cell evolved into a human being?

Many thousands of tests and observations support that view.

Where have you looked so far ?

What resources have you studied on this subject ?

Jubal

[Guy Threepwood]

what 'test' successfully demonstrated the claim, that a single cell evolved into a human being?

Many thousands of tests and observations support that view.

Where have you looked so far ?

What resources have you studied on this subject ?

Jubal

I asked for the best test demonstrating macro evolution, supporting the claim of a single cell evolving into a human being through random mutation

and was given this first

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/ ... real-time/

a single celled bacteria evolving into... a single celled bacteria...

that leaves a lot to the imagination!

[Guy Threepwood]

To me life is the most interesting scientific question there is, I think we all want to know the truth ultimately- whatever that is? if a single hoax can throw us so far off track for 40 years.. we have to appreciate how difficult it is to even reliably 'test' the theory

Guy -
you repeatedly focus on the mistake, but ignore the FIX.

Scientists, being human, will sometimes make mistakes.
That's hardly a secret, is it ?

That's exactly why science requires verification by others - to weed out mistakes. The history of science is full of mistakes that got fixed by scientists.

Do you remember the mistake of phlogiston ?
Do you use that mistake to reject all of chemistry ?
I doubt it.

Yet here you repeatedly bring up a minor mistake that was fixed, and then switch to doubts about the first cell evolving into a human - completely unrelated subjects.

I think your message is clear, even if unspoken :
some scientists made a minor mistake in the field of evolution,
therefore evolution is entirely wrong about everything.

Nonsense.

How about all the mistakes made by the Christian church ?
Mistakes never fixed.
Mistakes from thousands of years ago, still preached today.

If you think the minor and fixed mistake of Piltdown Man somehow proves all of evolution wrong,
then the many serious and unfixed mistakes of the church prove them even more wrong.

Jubal

No, I'm just saying that Darwinian evolution is not a conclusive, comprehensive explanation, I think it's looking rather less stable now than classical physics was before QM

I don't claim 'proven fact', I acknowledge faith in my beliefs. I may well be wrong, & that's been a pretty fruitful scientific approach

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Evolutionary theory predicts that as wealth concentrates to fewer and fewer folks, we might well see us more and more pitchforks.

Only don't it beat all, it can't predict the critter first apt to be poked.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 434 by JoeyKnothead]

It is an odd discrepancy;

that to some 'survival of the fittest' is the surest way to produce a healthy, balanced, rich diversity of life on Earth.. no intervention required

But when the same is applied to economics, it means surrendering to chaos, a system inherently doomed to collapse- requiring the intervention of intelligent agents to keep everything running smoothly ..

[Jubal]

No, I'm just saying that Darwinian evolution is not a conclusive, comprehensive explanation, I think it's looking rather less stable now than classical physics was before QM

I don't claim 'proven fact', I acknowledge faith in my beliefs. I may well be wrong, & that's been a pretty fruitful scientific approach

Yes, you are wrong.
Your faith contradicts the facts, as many here have pointed out to you.

Evolution is entirely stable, and gets more solid every year. But creationists have been claiming the opposite for 150 years, and keep getting it wrong every time.

I asked where you had looked, what you had studied - you gave me no answer.

Can we conclude your only sources on evolution are creationist web-sites ?
It rather looks like it.


Jubal

[Tired of the Nonsense]

To me life is the most interesting scientific question there is, I think we all want to know the truth ultimately- whatever that is? if a single hoax can throw us so far off track for 40 years.. we have to appreciate how difficult it is to even reliably 'test' the theory

Guy -
you repeatedly focus on the mistake, but ignore the FIX.

Scientists, being human, will sometimes make mistakes.
That's hardly a secret, is it ?

That's exactly why science requires verification by others - to weed out mistakes. The history of science is full of mistakes that got fixed by scientists.

Do you remember the mistake of phlogiston ?
Do you use that mistake to reject all of chemistry ?
I doubt it.

Yet here you repeatedly bring up a minor mistake that was fixed, and then switch to doubts about the first cell evolving into a human - completely unrelated subjects.

I think your message is clear, even if unspoken :
some scientists made a minor mistake in the field of evolution,
therefore evolution is entirely wrong about everything.

Nonsense.

How about all the mistakes made by the Christian church ?
Mistakes never fixed.
Mistakes from thousands of years ago, still preached today.

If you think the minor and fixed mistake of Piltdown Man somehow proves all of evolution wrong,
then the many serious and unfixed mistakes of the church prove them even more wrong.

Jubal

No, I'm just saying that Darwinian evolution is not a conclusive, comprehensive explanation, I think it's looking rather less stable now than classical physics was before QM

I don't claim 'proven fact', I acknowledge faith in my beliefs. I may well be wrong, & that's been a pretty fruitful scientific approach

So you are saying that modern science looks "rather less stable" to you than the Biblical story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus?

THE DAILY STAR
Shock claims Bible PROVES dinosaurs walked Earth with Jesus and Romans
By Jamie Micklethwaite / Published 30th November 2016
THE Bible proves dinosaurs were still alive 2,000 years ago and walked the Earth with Jesus, a priest has claimed.

New research by the Russian Orthodox church claims dinosaurs feature in the holy book.

This would mean that the beasts – which scientists say died out 65 million years ago – were around at the same time as the Roman Empire and Julius Caesar, as well as Jesus.

The article, dubbed "The Bible on Dinosaurs", argues that text in the holy book states that dinosaurs existed 7,000 years ago and became extinct around 2,000 years ago.

It says creatures described in the Bible – such as "leviathans" and "dragons� – were really dinosaurs and roamed the earth at the same time.

It reads: "Descriptions of an animal (similar to dinosaurs) can be found in the Book of Deuteronomy, which means an animal similar to a dinosaur was known to mankind both 7,000 years ago and 2,000 years ago."
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest ... dox-Church

[Guy Threepwood]

No, I'm just saying that Darwinian evolution is not a conclusive, comprehensive explanation, I think it's looking rather less stable now than classical physics was before QM

I don't claim 'proven fact', I acknowledge faith in my beliefs. I may well be wrong, & that's been a pretty fruitful scientific approach

Yes, you are wrong.
Your faith contradicts the facts, as many here have pointed out to you.

Evolution is entirely stable, and gets more solid every year. But creationists have been claiming the opposite for 150 years, and keep getting it wrong every time.

I asked where you had looked, what you had studied - you gave me no answer.

Can we conclude your only sources on evolution are creationist web-sites ?
It rather looks like it.


Jubal

Actually it was the other way around for me, the facts contradicted my faith in Darwinian evolution-

But either way, if you have a substantive argument to make for Darwinism, that would make for a far more 'Civil and engaging debate' than trading ad-hom accusations of bias

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 437 by Tired of the Nonsense]

So you are saying that modern science looks "rather less stable" to you than the Biblical story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus?

If my choice was between a single cell morphing into a human being through random mistakes, and a human being brought back to life ..


Well actually the latter is already technically demonstrable...

any luck on verifying the former yet?


Likewise on dinos existing in modern history, it's not something I adhere to, but it wouldn't be the most outrageous claim I've heard- we have some pretty close 'relations' still around after all

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 438 by Guy Threepwood]

Actually it was the other way around for me, the facts contradicted my faith in Darwinian evolution-

Could you please give us the most compelling examples of facts that contradicted your faith in evolution.